But I think your statement and the statement of the Ranking Member, and the bipartisan approach to accountability with regard to this issue, is enough said.

So, concrete plans of action were proposed or considered during these discussions? Or was it more of an open-ended kind of a discussion?

However, DOI's online press release states that the discussion occurred at Sacaton on June 11.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But I think your statement and the statement of the Ranking Member, and the bipartisan approach to accountability with regard to this issue, is enough said.

If relocated, the BLM leadership will become out of touch and rendered ineffective and irrelevant.

Absent a compelling showing of why this reorganization is needed and how it will advance the BLM's capacity to steward the National System of Public Lands for the benefit of all Americans, it seems increasingly clear that the…

We cannot let Secretary Bernhardt and the Acting Director turn it into a one-stop shop for companies.

The BLM, the resources it manages, and the people it serves are important, and the agency definitely deserves a national headquarters in our Nation's Capital.

Without these treaties and agreements, the United States would not be here.

The perceived benefits of such a move are without merit, and the adverse consequences could be profound.

If not rescinded or modified into a workable proposal, the BLM will be sidelined from any influence in national public lands policy within the beltway.

I put more faith in the voices of the experts.